At a comparatively recent period certain internal tiarks were observed to belong to documents contain- ing the same text. A similarity in characteristic readings was noticed. Bengei appears to have been the first to whom the idea suggested itself of dividing the materials according to the peculiarities which he £untly perceived. It was afterwards taken up by Semler, and highly elaborated by Griesbach. Later editors and criti(» have endeavored to improve upon Griesbach' s system. The different forms of text ob- served by Semler and Griesbach they called recensions^ although the appellation oifcanUy is more appropriate. Perhaps the data that have been so much reganled fn classifying the documents containing the New-Testa- ment text are insufficient to establish any system.
The subject of recensions, though freqfoentl^ is not settled. In the history of the m^r^mted 6ext ^ is the chief topic which comes before tbe ioqioret. Reserving it for future notice (see Reokbtsioss]), w^ pass to the history of ihe printed text, and the eSatm made to emend it.
2. The whole of the New Testament was first pnated (1.) in the Complutensian Pc^yglot, 1514, Ibl. (toI. t). though not published tlU 1517. The first patdished was (2.) that of Erasmus, at Basle, in 1516, 2 xnols. ta L foL Both were issued independently of oae mmotha, and constitute the basis of tlie received ieaeL, Tet thr best materials were not employed in preparing and on both the Vulgate was allowed to exert an due influence. Even critical conjecture -was to by Erasmus. No less than five iiiipreasi<Mis v«fv published by Erasmus, into the third of which 1 Jc^ V, 7, was first put. ' In the last two be made gp»t ute of the Complutensian Polyglot.
(B.) The third place among the eaiiy editors of thf Greek Testament has been assigned to Robert iS^e> phens, whose first edition was printed at Pftris 0bH, 12mo), chiefly taken from the Complutensialif andgee- erally styled the Mirifica edition, from the commeBce^ ment of the preface. His second edition was pablhlH ed in 1549 ; the third m 1550, in folio. In this last hf followed the fifth of Erasmus, with which he compmc fifteen MSS., and the Complutensian Polye^lot. Is 1551 appeared another edition, accompanied by thr Vulgate and the translation of Erasmus. It is remark- able for being the first into wliich the division c^ verses was introduced.
(4.) The next person that contributed to the criti- cism of the Greek Testament was Theodore Bexa. The text of his first edition (1565, folio) was the same as that of the third of Stephens, altered in about fiilj places, accompanied with the Vulgate, a Latin Teraoo of his own, and exegetical remarks. In his secoad edition (1582) he had the benefit of tiie Srriac wnatm and two ancient codices. A third impression appear^ ed in 1589, and a fourth in 1598. The £Zeertr edittotf exhibit partly the text of the third of Stephens, sad ^rtly that of Beza. The first appeared at Leydoi in 1624. The second edition of 1633 proclaims its test to be the iextus receptus, which it afterwards becsiae: Subsequently three other editions issued from the sane press. The editor does not appear to baTe consulted any Greek MSS. All his readings are either in Bea or Stephens. The Ekevir editions are all in 12ido.
(5.) Brian Walton, the learned editor of tbe Londca Polyglot, gave a more copious collection of Tarioc« readings in the sixth volume of that work thra Ipd before appeared, which was further enlarged hy Dr. Fell, in his edition, published at Oxford in 1675, and reprinted by Gregory in 1703, folio. See Poltglots.
(6.) Dr. John Mill, encouraged and supported by Fell, gave to the world a new edition in 1707, foJ». The text is that of Stephens*s third edition. In it ^ editor exhibited, fh)m Gregory's MSS., a mndi great- er number of readings than is to be found in any for> mer edition. He revised and increased the extracts formerly made from ancient versions. Nor did be neglect quotations from tbe fathers. It is said that the work contains thirty thousand various readings. This important edition, so far superior to every pre- ceding one, cost the laborious editor the toils<Hne stady of thbty years, and excited the prejudices of maay who were unable to appreciate its excellence. It con- stituted a new era in the criticism of the New Testa- ment. Ludolph Kuster reprinted MilPs Greek Tes- tament at Amsterdam in 1710, enriching it with tbe readings of twelve additional MSS. The first attempt to emend the textus receptus was made by John AIb«ft Bengei, abbot of Alpirspach. His edition appeared at TQbingen (quarto, 1734), to which was prefixed Us " Introdactio in crisin Novi TestamentL** Subjoined is an apparcUm criticus, containing his coUectioa of
CRITICISM
671
CRITICISM
iotts TMdiiig, chiefly taken fiK>m WSl, but with im- taut additicmSi
7.) Dr. John James Wetstein contributed, in no all degree, to the advancement of sacred criticism, his hige edition of the Greek Testament, pubBsfaed Amsterdam in 1751-2, 2 vols, folio. In 1730 he had tliahed prolegomena. It was his desire to give a w and corrected text, but he was compelled by cir- nstances to exhibit the texttu reoeptus. Yet he »d, partly in the text itself, partly in the inner mar- I, such readings as he preferred. His collection of rioQS readings, wiUi their respective authorities, far eeeds all former works of the same kind in copious- M and value. He collated anew many important ^. that had been superficially examined, gave ex- tcts from many for the first time, and made use of ) Hardean (improperly called the Philoxenian) ver- D, hitherto uncoUated. For convenfence he marked ) uncial MSS. with the letters of the alphabet, and 9 amhe with numerical letters. His exegetical tes are chiefly extracts from Greek, Latin, and Jew-